Tag Archives: influence

Little nectar ‘worlds’ show how species live together

New research unravels the relative importance of two theories about how species coexist.

Picture, for example, a sticky drop of nectar clinging to the tip of a hummingbird’s beak that drips into the next flower the bird visits. With that subtle change, the microbes within that drop are now in a new environment, teeming with other microbes. This is a small example of species forced to live together in the real world.

It turns out that a less popular theory, one having to do with the way organisms respond and contribute to environmental fluctuations, likely plays a bigger role than ecologists had thought—this according to the study of the nectar-dwelling yeast of Stanford University’s Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve. The work, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, could influence how scientists model the effects of climate change on organisms.

“This particular experiment was motivated by basic curiosity about how species coexist,” says Tadashi Fukami, associate professor of biology. “We experimented with nectar-colonizing yeasts because we had gathered data about them in the wild, such as hummingbirds visits, interactions with flowers, effects of resources. This way we can design lab experiments that have a clear natural context.”

Two theories

Scientists have proposed two mechanisms to explain how species coexist in variable environments, called the storage effect and relative nonlinearity. The storage effect holds that species can coexist if they can store gains for lean times and their lean times don’t overlap, which means they are mostly competing with individuals belonging to their own species for resources during favorable times.

The concept of relative nonlinearity maintains that coexistence can occur when one species thrives off fluctuation in resources, the other thrives off stability in resources, and each species’ use of resources contributes to the state—fluctuation or stability—that benefits the other.

Andrew Letten, senior author of the paper, led the study as a postdoctoral fellow in the Fukami Lab. The goal was to understand each mechanism’s relative importance to coexistence. He found inspiration in a paper led by a theoretical ecologist at Cornell University, which outlined a new method for quantifying the storage effect through statistical simulations.

“Up until that paper, there was no realistic means of quantifying the relative contribution of the two mechanisms,” says Letten, who is now a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. “When I read it, I literally felt giddy because it was so serendipitously tailored to what we were already doing, but enabled us to take it so much further.”

Relative nonlinearity wins out

By creating thousands of microcosms, each growing one species of nectar yeasts, the researchers gathered high-resolution data about the complex ways in which the yeasts respond to environmental conditions. Next, they used those data to create scenarios where the yeasts grew in pairs and applied the new method to disentangle the influence of the storage effect from that of relative nonlinearity on the yeasts’ coexistence.

“The idea is, you can mathematically model these coexistence mechanisms, knock them out in the simulations, and then that shows you how those species grow without that mechanism,” explains Po-Ju Ke, graduate student in biology and coauthor of the paper. “For example, relative nonlinearity relies on fluctuations in amino acids in nectar, a primary resource for yeast growth, so we simulated a stable level of amino acids to remove the influence of that mechanism.”

Lastly, the researchers compared their simulated results with the results of experiments where two species were grown together. This work is the first to experimentally tease apart the two mechanisms in real organisms and it agreed with the simulations 83 percent of the time.

Is symbiosis just a sneaky way to take, take, take?

Looking at their findings, the big surprise was that there were instances where a lack of relative nonlinearity led to one species dying out. This contradicts a common assumption among ecologists.

“Storage effect, maybe because it’s an older concept and more intuitive and easier to get data on, has always been assumed to be the main mechanism,” says Fukami. “We found they both can be important, but the main finding is that relative nonlinearity is much more important than most ecologists assumed.”

From micro to macro

Cell and molecular biology often concentrates on studying a particular pathway in intricate detail, whereas ecology tends to focus on larger systems, studying them holistically. In their current work, the Fukami Lab is pursuing research that can apply to both levels.

“As ecologists, we are working to understand holistically how these yeasts are interacting—in the world, with pollinators, with each other, in the nectar—but we can also use the tools that cell biologists have developed to study baker’s yeast to study nectar yeasts in order to gain more precise ecological understanding,” says Callie Chappell, a graduate student in the Fukami Lab and lead author of a different paper in the journal Yeast about developing a general ecological theory using nectar yeasts as new model organisms.

In addition to the fundamental insights into how species can survive together with few resources, the research team hopes that the experiments detailed in the current work will cause ecologists to reconsider how climate change may affect species. Climate change will lead to increased fluctuation in the environment, such as severe weather events, and this work shows that multiple mechanisms of species coexistence in fluctuating environments must be considered simultaneously to predict the fate of species under climate change.

Manpreet Dhami, a former postdoctoral fellow at Stanford, now at Landcare Research, New Zealand, is also a coauthor of the PNAS paper. That work had funding from sources at Stanford and from the National Science Foundation.

Source: Stanford University

The post Little nectar ‘worlds’ show how species live together appeared first on Futurity.

This Planned Parenthood tool tracks Trump’s war on women’s health

“[T]here’s just so much going on that people don’t know what’s happening. But when they find out what’s happening, they’re furious.”

When you think of the Trump administration’s ongoing battle against women’s health, you might envision Mike Pence or Trump himself as the primary players. The name Valerie Huber probably doesn’t come to mind–but Huber, who is the senior policy advisor to the assistant secretary for health, has an outsize influence on who gets birth control in the U.S. That’s because she’s in charge of deciding which healthcare organizations get funding from the nation’s program for affordable birth control. It turns out Huber doesn’t believe in abortion at all, and is a staunch advocate for abstinence-only sex ed. Since she joined the Department of Health and Human Services last summer, funding has been cut to a program meant to help teens safely learn about sex and prevent teen pregnancy.

Read Full Story

Why Facebook’s restrictions on data worry me

Anthony Sanford is a postdoctoral fellow in economics at the University of Washington.


Social media sites’ responses to the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal and new European privacy regulations have given users much more control over who can access their data, and for what purposes. To me, as a social media user, these are positive developments: It’s scary to think what these platforms could do with the troves of data available about me. But as a researcher, increased restrictions on data sharing worry me.

I am among the many scholars who depend on data from social media to gain insights into people’s actions. In a rush to protect individuals’ privacy, I worry that an unintended casualty could be knowledge about human nature. My most recent work, for example, analyzes feelings people express on Twitter to explain why the stock market fluctuates so much over the course of a single day. There are applications well beyond finance. Other scholars have studied mass transit rider satisfactionemergency alert systems’ function during natural disasters and how online interactions influence people’s desire to lead healthy lifestyles.

This poses a dilemma–not just for me personally, but for society as a whole. Most people don’t want social media platforms to share or sell their personal information, unless specifically authorized by the individual user. But as members of a collective society, it’s useful to understand the social forces at work influencing everyday life and long-term trends. Before the recent crises, Facebook and other companies had already been making it hard for legitimate researchers to use their data, including by making it more difficult and more expensive to download and access data for analysis. The renewed public pressure for privacy means it’s likely to get even tougher.

Using social media data in research

It’s definitely alarming to consider the prospect that people or companies might analyze my data and find ways to influence me to make decisions I might not otherwise–or that are even counter to my own best interests. I need think only of the number of times I’ve seen a TV ad for pizza during a sporting event and ordered a pizza.

That’s the point of marketing, of course–but social media is different because the information is about me specifically. And using that information can affect much more than what food I buy, such as whom I vote for. However, as a researcher in finance, I also recognize that the same data can be used to help us understand collective behaviors that are otherwise impossible to explain.

Some of my research, for example, explores short-term trends in stock prices. Financial experts have found that over the long term, a company’s stock prices are driven by the firm’s future value. Yet over the course of any single day, stock prices can vary widely. Many finance researchers and financial analysts will tell you that these movements are meaningless noise, seemingly random pieces of information about companies influencing investors’ perceptions and causing stock prices to vary constantly.

But by analyzing social media data, I can actually understand what that noise is, where it comes from and what it means. For instance, what people write on Twitter about the new iPhone will affect Apple’s stock price, sometimes within minutes–but even over the course of days. The speed of the effect depends on the importance or prominence of the person sending the tweet, as well as how quickly others–including the media–pick up the message.

Results from my research can help investors fine-tune when and how they enter the market. If, for example, social media users believe that the newest iPhone will not be as good as expected, investors might hold off on their investment in Apple stock. That could free them up to invest in something else with better buzz, in hopes of higher returns.


RelatedWhy Instagram is the best window into Trump-era corruption 


Anonymizing data

It’s true–and concerning–that some presumably unethical people have tried to use social media data for their own benefit. But the data are not the actual problem, and cutting researchers’ access to data is not the solution. Doing so would also deprive society of the benefits of social media analysis.

Fortunately, there is a way to resolve this dilemma. Anonymization of data can keep people’s individual privacy intact, while giving researchers access to collective data that can yield important insights.

There’s even a strong model for how to strike that balance efficiently: the U.S. Census Bureau. For decades, that government agency has collected extremely personal data from households all across the country: ages, employment status, income levels, Social Security numbers, and political affiliations. The results it publishes are very rich, but also not traceable to any individual.

It often is technically possible to reverse anonymity protections on data, using multiple pieces of anonymized information to identify the person they all relate to. The Census Bureau takes steps to prevent this.

For instance, when members of the public access census data, the Census Bureau restricts information that is likely to identify specific individuals, such as reporting there is just one person in a community with a particularly high- or low-income level.

For researchers the process is somewhat different, but provides significant protections both in law and in practice. Scholars have to pass the Census Bureau’s vetting process to make sure they are legitimate, and must undergo training about what they can and cannot do with the data. The penalties for violating the rules include not only being barred from using census data in the future, but also civil fines and even criminal prosecution.

Even then, what researchers get comes without a name or Social Security number. Instead, the Census Bureau uses what it calls “protected identification keys,” a random number that replaces data that would allow researchers to identify individuals.

Each person’s data is labeled with his or her own identification key, allowing researchers to link information of different types. For instance, a researcher wanting to track how long it takes people to complete a college degree could follow individuals’ education levels over time, thanks to the identification keys.

Social media platforms could implement a similar anonymization process instead of increasing hurdles–and cost–to access their data. They could assign users identification numbers instead of sharing their real identities, and could agree to government regulations defining who could get access to what data, including real penalties for violating the rules. Then researchers could discover the insights offered by social media use, just like they do with census data, without threatening people’s privacy.


This essay first appeared at The Conversation.

WWDC 2018 should be Siri’s time to shine

For several years now, Apple has neatly lined up its operating-system timetables to let it unveil multiple platform upgrades at its annual WWDC keynote. There’s iOS, the company’s modern flagship. MacOS, its historic mainstay. And WatchOS and tvOS, both of which remain works in progress. It’s a massive amount of software functionality to announce all at once.

However, at Monday’s WWDC keynote—which we’ll be liveblogging—the news about all four of these operating systems will matter less than whatever Apple has to say about Siri, its voice assistant.

Siri isn’t an operating system in a traditional, literal sense: It’s a feature which spans all of Apple’s products, and which mostly lives in the cloud rather than running on the devices themselves. But personal technology’s biggest platform war is raging between AI-infused voice services: Siri, Amazon’s Alexa, the Google Assistant, and Microsoft’s Cortana. And in any rational analysis of that battle, Apple is a distinct underdog to Amazon and Google.

It’s not just about the useful things a voice assistant can do—and which other assistants do in greater quantity, with a deeper understanding of spoken commands, than Siri. It’s also become an embarassing truism that Apple is bad at AI, at least in comparison to Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. As with most truisms, that doesn’t necessarily line up with reality, and Apple’s traditional resistance to reveal much about its research efforts makes it particularly hard to gauge its progress in AI. But when the company does make major strides in this field, they’ll be most likely to show up as new capabilities within Siri.

Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman, the Apple beat’s most reliable reporter when it comes to intelligence on unannounced products, has a pre-WWDC report which suggests that the keynote will not be jam-packed with major news. But Gurman’s story hardly mentions Siri at all; it wouldn’t be a shocker if WWDC brings advances for the service which Apple has managed to keep secret. (After all, it’s a lot easier to prevent leaks when a product is purely software-based than it is with a piece of hardware that’s chock full of components manufactured by other companies.)

Here are some things I’ll be looking for on Monday from my seat in San Jose’s McEnery Convention Center:

Third-party integrations

Apple has been opening Siri up to useful functionality provided by other companies for awhile: You can already speak to the service to hail an Uber, turn on a Hue light bulb, or send a message in WhatsApp. But the company, which has always preferred controlling its experiences to providing outsiders with unfettered access, has been slow to turn its assistant into an ecosystem. Instead, it’s Amazon, with features such as the ability for third-party developers to charge for content within an Alexa skill, that’s built a platform that feels like the iOS of voice. Apple may have no interest in Siri becoming as open as Alexa, but it’ll never make up for time already lost unless it lets other companies help teach Siri new tricks.

Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are all spreading their respective voice platforms’ influence by encouraging other manufacturers to incorporate them into new devices—such as Google Assistant-powered smart screens and Alexa-ready laptops. Apple may be no more likely to pursue this strategy than it would be to let someone else build an iOS smartphone. But rumor has it that we may at least a Siri speaker from Apple-owned Beats. And additional integration into cars—one area where Apple already lets Siri venture into third-party hardware—would be welcome.

HomePod advances

Even since Apple announced the HomePod, it’s been reminding people that the #1 activity on smart speakers is listening to music. That’s allowed it to focus on audio quality and downplay its device as a direct rival to Amazon’s Echo and Google’s Home, both of which have more of an emphasis on home automation and other capabilities. I’ve always assumed that Apple has emphasized this positioning merely to bide time while it worked on rethinking Siri for the new context that the smart-speaker category demands. Monday’s keynote, a year after the HomePod’s announcement, would be an ideal venue for showing off new features that emphasize the smart in smart speaker.

Privacy matters

As Tim Cook is fond of pointing out, Apple is in the business of selling hardware rather than advertising, which gives it little incentive to squirrel away its customers’ data and poke through it in ways that anyone might regard as a violation of privacy. However, the company must balance this approach with the fact that AI loves data; the more it knows about us, the smarter it seems. I’d expect Cook and company to bring up privacy and reiterate Apple’s hardline stance during this year’s WWDC keynote—now more than ever—but they must simultaneously show that Siri isn’t done getting better at understanding us.

Wild cards

It’s certainly rankled Apple to be burdened with an image as an AI laggard. One thing that would remind the world that the company is serious about shedding that reputation would be for John Giannandrea—the former Google AI chief who defected to Cupertino a couple of months ago–to make an on-stage appearance on Monday. Even though his influence on Apple’s platforms won’t truly be felt until next year’s conference, he could start to spell out a new vision.

Much of what Apple still needs to do with artificial intelligence involves catching up with the competition. But it would be far more intriguing if Siri’s AI goes places that nobody is expecting. At I/O, Google did that with Duplex, the new feature designed to let the Google Assistant call local businesses and interact with humans to do things such as schedule a haircut. Apple is unlikely to be working on anything in the same ballpark—which is just as well given how little Google has done to allay concerns about its technology. But if Apple shows Siri doing something that’s both utterly new and classically Apple, it will the best possible way to make WWDC 2018 memorable.

Screen-Shot-2018-05-30-at-12.37.01-PM

Exclusive: Ro Khanna’s letter calling for AT&T CEO to explain why he hired Cohen

Silicon Valley’s representative, Ro Khanna (D-CA), has now formally requested that the House Energy & Commerce Committee invite AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson to appear before it and explain how his company’s retainer of Trump’s personal attorney in 2017 doesn’t constitute influence buying.

Incidentally, Stephenson was out spinning the issue today at Recode‘s CodeCon conference in California.

California’s strict data breach law moves forward

Shortly after passing a super-strict net neutrality bill, the California senate OK’d, by 21-13, another key tech measure, allowing any consumer affected by a data breech to sue for damages. People don’t even have to be customers or users of a service to sue (as previously required), which lets them take action against third-party data brokers like the infamously leaky Equifax. The bill provides pretty tough measures, allowing people to sue for $1,000 per data breach or for monetary damages—whichever sum is greater.

Like all bills passed in a final-week voting frenzy, “SB-1121 Personal Information,” by Senator Bill Dodd, now goes to the state assembly, where it must pass or fail by August 31. If the bill succeeds, Democratic Governor Jerry Brown would then have 30 days to sign or veto it.

Why do we keep talking about California tech bills? It’s the biggest state in the U.S., with nearly 40 million people. And not only does it have this country’s biggest economy, it is now the world’s fifth largest economy, recently passing out the United Kingdom. And with a fiercely anti-regulation federal government in the U.S., California is perhaps the main source of consumer protection measures–ones that often influence companies’ practices in other states. Of course, California is also home of some of the biggest tech companies that such legislation would affect.

Bird and turtle genomes offer clues to ancient lizardy creature

Scientists have reconstructed the likely genome structure of a common ancestor of birds, turtles, and dinosaurs.

The research, published in Nature Communications, suggests the chromosomal structure, known as a karyotype, in early dinosaurs is similar to that of most present-day birds.

Working backward from the living relatives of dinosaurs can shed light on traits the fossil record can’t illuminate, says Nicole Valenzuela, a professor of ecology, evolution, and organismal biology at Iowa State University and coauthor of the study.

“Some traits can be observed through fossils and some can’t,” Valenzuela says. “The genome structure is one that can’t be preserved, so we have to get creative if we want to figure that out.”

The researchers compared commonalities between birds and turtles in how their chromosomes, or thread-like structures in living cells that contain an organism’s DNA, are organized. Those commonalities likely existed in an ancestor of birds and turtles—a primitive, lizard-like creature that lived roughly 260 million years ago. The dinosaurs sprang from that same evolutionary branch about 20 million years later, meaning they would carry the same karyotype.

That large-scale arrangement of many chromosomes remained intact from that common ancestor over the course of hundreds of millions of years into present-day birds and turtles, which probably means this organization has critical functions for those organisms.

“That conservation, to me, is remarkable,” Valenzuela says. “Things are usually conserved over that scale of time because they’re important.”

Valenzuela joined the research group, which researchers at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom led, because of her experience with turtle genomes. Her previous work focused on temperature-dependent sex determination, or the way fluctuations in temperature during embryonic development influence the sex of some species of turtles, and more recently on the evolution of turtle chromosomes.

Due to the wide variation of traits among turtles, birds, and dinosaurs, Valenzuela says it’s impossible to tell if the similarities in karyotype contribute to any specific feature of any specific species. In fact, it’s possible that more subtle changes to the structure or DNA sequences within chromosomes helps to facilitate the enormous diversity displayed by the animals in the study.

“We need to look deeper to figure out the basis of the traits that make turtles, birds, and dinosaurs so different from each other,” she says.

Source: Iowa State University

The post Bird and turtle genomes offer clues to ancient lizardy creature appeared first on Futurity.

Students may do worse when they know past grades in a class

Undergraduates who know how previous students performed in their university courses end up receiving slightly lower grades on average than they would have if they didn’t check out that information, according to new research.

In a new research paper, researchers examined the effects of a course-planning web application which visualizes data from registrar records and prior student evaluations for each class. Through a randomized field experiment, the scholars found that the use of this platform led on average to a drop of 0.16 units in overall GPA. As an example, that decrease is large enough to move a B+ grade roughly half the distance to a B, the researchers says.

“…providing this type of information in a university environment can have a wide range of effects, some of which are unexpected.”

“The information students rely on to make academic decisions can have a demonstrable effect on their behavior,” says paper coauthor Mitchell Stevens, an associate professor at the Stanford University Graduate School of Education. “The design of academic environments, both digital and physical, really matters for student outcomes in college.”

The lowered scores were especially prominent among freshmen and sophomores, whose GPAs declined by 0.26. Juniors’ and seniors’ GPAs decreased only by 0.09 on average, according to the researchers.

The findings offer some of the first evidence that student behavior and academic performance can be affected by exposure to this type of data, which is more and more common in higher education as a way to help all students have equal access to information about courses and make more knowledgeable decisions about their academic schedules.

“This is a powerful insight for educators, because it suggests that the presentation of currently available institutional information can influence students’ academic behaviors,” the researchers write.

“The main takeaway here is that providing this type of information in a university environment can have a wide range of effects, some of which are unexpected. And we need to understand more about how students use some of this information,” says study coauthor Ramesh Johari, associate professor of management science and engineering.

Info and our actions

Universities and colleges around the country are starting to provide students access to data to help them make decisions about the courses they take.

For this study, the researchers examined the impact of students’ use of Carta, a web-based course-planning tool the researchers developed and made available to students as a voluntary resource to help them plan their courses. The researchers divided students into two groups: those who were encouraged to use Carta and those who weren’t.

The Carta platform provides course information, when available, including the distribution of prior students’ grades, percentage of students who dropped out and withdrew, average rating given by previous student evaluations, and the number of hours per week students reported spending on the course, plus advice from past students to future students considering taking the class.

“What sort of information do students deserve to know? In what form should that information be presented?”

“Universities have a treasure trove of data on what students have done in the past, and this data can help students make better choices,” says René Kizilcec, a researcher at the Graduate School of Education who is joining Cornell University as an assistant professor of information science in July. “One of the big questions is how to present this data so it could guide them rather than lead them astray.”

A concern some educators have expressed about showing students previous grades is that it could lead to students choosing what look like easier courses in order to get higher grades, resulting in grade inflation.

“However, the evidence from the study does not support the conclusion that students change their course portfolio to take easier courses after using Carta,” says lead author Tum Chaturapruek, a computer science doctoral candidate.

The researchers found that seeing prior grades had the biggest impact on GPA. But the researchers also found evidence that showing students solely how much time was spent on the course had a positive effect on GPA.

‘Social jet lag’ can lead to lower grades

“The reality is much more complicated,” Johari says. “Students use this information in different ways, which we are just starting to try to understand.”

What might lead to the grade drop? The researchers found that the shift in GPA was tied to changes in students’ behavior within courses. The researchers hypothesize that the GPA changes are tied to students’ expectations about how hard their courses will be.

“Students start college with a lot of uncertainty about how hard their coursework is going to be. So when they see those grade distributions, which often show that a high percentage of students get A’s, they may invest a little less effort in their coursework,” Stevens offered as a plausible interpretation of the finding. “This is substantiated by the fact that the negative GPA change is strongest for first-year students during their first quarter.”

Making informed choices

The new research paper is the first in a series of studies the researchers are conducting. They also hope to partner with other universities on future studies.

Further research is needed to figure out how the behavior of students changes exactly, the scholars says. In addition, the effects of similar information on student behavior may be different at other universities or colleges.

Study with a strategy to boost grades in college

“This research is already creating many conversations, and there are great questions out there: What sort of information do students deserve to know? In what form should that information be presented?” Stevens says. “We hope to continue to contribute to these discussions and others with further studies.”

The new research paper will be part of the ACM Conference on Learning at Scale at the end of June.

Source: Stanford University

The post Students may do worse when they know past grades in a class appeared first on Futurity.

Brain scans show diabetics more likely to focus on negative

People with Type 2 diabetes and prediabetes are more likely to focus on and have a strong emotional response to threats and negative things, which affects quality of life and increases risk for depression, according to new research.

The study, which appears in Psychosomatic Medicine, suggests those negative feelings of sadness, anger, and anxiety—which can be a daily occurrence for people with diabetes or prediabetes—may stem from problems regulating blood sugar levels that influence emotional response in the brain.

Researchers analyzed data on startle response, brain activity, cortisol levels, and cognitive assessment. Data came from Midlife in the US (MIDUS), a national study of health and well-being.

Gauging the startle response allowed researchers to measure central nervous system activity using tiny electrodes placed below the eye, says Auriel Willette, assistant professor of food science and human nutrition at Iowa State University.

Study participants viewed a series of negative, positive, and neutral images intended to elicit an emotional response. The electrodes captured the rate of flinch or startle, a contraction we cannot control, associated with each image.

“People with higher levels of insulin resistance were more startled by negative pictures. By extension, they may be more reactive to negative things in life,” Willette says. “It is one piece of evidence to suggest that these metabolic problems are related to issues with how we perceive and deal with things that stress all of us out.”

Some people with diabetes lack blood sugar ‘awareness’

The evidence is even more compelling when combined with the results of EEG tests recording activity when the brain is at rest, researchers say.

Participants with prediabetes and Type 2 diabetes had more activity on the right side of the brain, which is associated with depression and negative emotions. If someone is predisposed to focusing on negative things, it may become a barrier for losing weight and reversing health issues, says lead author Tovah Wolf, a graduate student working with Willette.

People with prediabetes and diabetes also recorded lower cortisol levels—a potential indicator of chronic stress—and cognitive test scores, providing additional support for the findings.

“For people with blood sugar problems, being more stressed and reactive can cause blood sugar to spike. If people with prediabetes and diabetes are trying to reverse or treat the disease, stressful events may hinder their goals,” Wolf says. “Frequent negative reactions to stressful events can lead to a lower quality of life and create a vicious cycle that makes it difficult to be healthy.”

Willette can relate. He struggled with weight, at one time weighing 260 pounds, which affected his day-to-day quality of life. The risk of cardiovascular disease and other chronic illnesses related to obesity is well known, but many people may not recognize how fluctuations in blood sugar can take a toll on them every day, he says.

Skin transplants could treat diabetes and obesity

Additional work is needed to determine if the link between insulin resistance and emotional response is causal, and explore options for potential interventions. Researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison contributed to the research.

Source: Iowa State University

The post Brain scans show diabetics more likely to focus on negative appeared first on Futurity.